Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 8 cited by

GLIMPSE: An ultra-faint $\simeq$ 10$^{5}$ $M_{\odot}$ Pop III Galaxy Candidate and First Constraints on the Pop III UV Luminosity Function at $z\simeq6-7$

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the discovery of an ultra-faint, lensed galaxy at z≈6.5 whose colors and spectrum match a young, metal-free Population III stellar population, and uses it to set the first observational constraints on the Pop III…

desk verdict A serious, honest photometric search with one plausible Pop III candidate and first UVLF constraints at z~6-7; the identification is plausible but hinges on an F410M upper limit and needs spectroscopy. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11678 v2 pith:K6VDB4TA submitted 2025-01-20 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.SR

Seiji Fujimoto , Rohan P. Naidu , John Chisholm , Hakim Atek , Ryan Endsley , Vasily Kokorev , Lukas J. Furtak , Richard Pan
show 27 more authors
Boyuan Liu Volker Bromm Alessandra Venditti Eli Visbal Richard Sarmento Andrea Weibel Pascal A. Oesch Gabriel Brammer Daniel Schaerer Angela Adamo Danielle A. Berg Rachel Bezanson Iryna Chemerynska Adélaïde Claeyssens Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky Anna Frebel Damien Korber Ivo Labbe Rui Marques-Chaves Jorryt Matthee Kristen B. W. McQuinn Julian B. Muñoz Priyamvada Natarajan Alberto Saldana-Lopez Katherine A. Suess Marta Volonteri Adi Zitrin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.SR
keywords PopulationIIIstarsfirsthigh-redshiftgalaxiesJWSTNIRCamgravitationallensingUVluminosityfunctiongalaxyformationmetal-freestar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the discovery of GLIMPSE-16043, an ultra-faint galaxy at redshift z≈6.5 whose light bears the distinctive signatures expected of a Population III stellar population — the first generation of metal-free stars. The authors argue that the object's extremely strong Hα emission (rest-frame equivalent width 2810±550 Å), a Balmer jump, a dust-free UV slope, and the absence of detectable metal lines such as [O III] are best explained by a nascent (<5 Myr), metal-poor stellar population of roughly $10^{5}$ M⊙, magnified by gravitational lensing. They further use the candidate, together with one tentative object and non-detections across ~500 arcmin² of deep JWST legacy imaging, to place the first observational constraints on the Pop III ultraviolet luminosity function at z≈6–7. The inferred volume density of about $10^{-4}$ $cMpc^{-3}$ agrees with theoretical predictions for late Pop III star formation. If the identification is correct, this is the closest look yet at the universe's first stars; the paper plainly states that photometric alternatives — an extremely metal-poor galaxy, a metal-poor AGN, or an unusual low-redshift interloper — remain open until spectroscopy settles the case.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a NIRCam-only selection method that isolates three features of Pop III SEDs — extremely strong Hα (rest-frame EW ≳ 2000–3000 Å), a pronounced Balmer jump, and the complete absence of the [O III] λ5008 line — using the broad- and medium-band filters F200W, F277W, F356W, F410M, and F444W. Candidates must pass three color-color cuts and an SED-fit criterion: the difference in χ² between the best metal-enriched-galaxy template and the best Pop III template (from the Yggdrasil and Nakajima–Maiolino model families) must favor Pop III by Δχ²>9, with the Pop III photometric redshift in 5<z<7.5. The method is validated with Monte Carlo completeness simulations and contamination tests against a semi-analytic mock catalog; combining color and SED criteria drives the contamination rate to zero across the relevant magnitude–redshift grid. Gravitational lensing in the GLIMPSE field (Abell S1063) is what pushes the imaging depth past ~30.5 mag, making an intrinsically ~$10^{5}$ M⊙ galaxy detectable.

What would settle it

A deep NIRSpec spectrum of GLIMPSE-16043 would settle it: detection of [O III] λ5008 (bringing [O III]/Hβ above ~0.44 at 1σ), broad Balmer emission characteristic of an active black hole, or identification of a Paschen-α emitter near z≈1.5 would falsify the Pop III interpretation; likewise, a >2σ detection in F410M would weaken the Balmer-jump-plus-extreme-Hα solution that the candidate's photometry rests on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a photometrically selected, lensed galaxy — GLIMPSE-16043 — whose spectral energy distribution is dominated by nebular emission from a very young, essentially metal-free stellar population at z=6.50(+0.03,-0.24). After correcting for a magnification of μ=2.9 the source has intrinsic M_UV=-15.89, a stellar mass near $10^{5}$ M⊙, an age of ~2.8 Myr, a rest-frame Hα equivalent width of 2810±550 Å, a UV slope β=-2.34±0.36, and a 1σ upper limit [O III]/Hβ<0.44 that implies gas-phase metallicity below ~0.5% solar. The authors interpret these as textbook Pop III signatures: strong hydrogen lines, a Balmer jump, and no metal lines. They also present the first Pop III UV luminosity function constraints at z≈5.6–6.6, anchored by GLIMPSE-16043 and bounded by upper limits from ~500 arcmin² of JWST legacy fields; the measured space density (~$10^{-4}$ $cMpc^{-3}$ at M_UV≈-16) falls squarely within the range of theoretical models. A second source, JOF-21739, is presented as tentative because while it shows similar SED features, it does not pass all color thresholds and a z≈1.5 Paschen-α solution is nearly as good. The paper explicitly concedes that an extremely metal-poor galaxy, an ultra-faint metal-poor AGN, or an as-yet-unseen low-redshift contaminant cannot be fully excluded until deep spectroscopy is obtained.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the faint photometric pattern — a strong Hα excess, a Balmer jump, and no metal lines — is produced by a young, metal-free stellar population at z≈6.5, and not by a rare kind of low-redshift galaxy or an extremely metal-poor black hole that mimics the same colors; the paper itself notes that this distinction cannot be closed without deep spectroscopy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If GLIMPSE-16043 is what the SEDs indicate, metal-free star formation persisted in pristine pockets of gas until z≈6.5, well below the z≈15–20 epoch where Pop III stars are usually sought.
  • The Pop III UV luminosity function at z≈5.6–6.6 now has its first data point: a space density of ≈10^-4 cMpc^-3 at M_UV≈-16, with upper limits at brighter magnitudes that simulations of late Pop III formation must reproduce.
  • The inferred cosmic Pop III star-formation rate density at z≈6–7 falls near 10^-6 to 10^-4 M⊙ yr^-1 Mpc^-3, roughly 0.01–1% of the total star formation at that epoch.
  • Because the selection method is purely photometric, it can be rolled out over other deep NIRCam surveys, so even non-detections place useful bounds on Pop III models.
  • Even if the Pop III interpretation fails, the object is an extremely metal-poor compact galaxy or a low-mass seed-black-hole candidate, either of which is itself a rare find at z>6.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Pop III interpretation survives spectroscopy, the strong deviation from the extrapolated luminosity–metallicity relation independently supports a top-heavy initial mass function in metal-free gas, which would strengthen the case that the first stars were massive and efficient producers of ionizing photons and seed black holes.
  • The same three-feature selection could be pushed to z≈4–5 with different medium-band filters, where JWST is even more sensitive to Hα; a wide-field campaign there could turn the single candidate into a statistical sample and test whether the Pop III volume density decline with time matches the models.
  • A decisive test is a single NIRSpec medium-resolution spectrum searching for He II λ1640 or λ4686 at the expected strength and pushing [O III]/Hβ below ~0.1; broad Balmer lines would instead reveal a ~10^4–10^5 M⊙ black hole, connecting this object to the seed-black-hole problem.
  • The quoted space density implies roughly one Pop III candidate per deep lensing-cluster NIRCam pointing, so a wide lensing-snapshot survey program could yield a sample large enough to separate genuine Pop III galaxies from the mimicking populations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a photometric search for Population III galaxies at z~6–7 using JWST/NIRCam data. The authors define a selection based on three NIRCam color-color diagrams and an EAZY-based SED fit that compares Pop III templates (Yggdrasil and Nakajima & Maiolino) against metal-enriched templates, with thresholds Δχ²≥9. They validate completeness and contamination using Monte Carlo simulations and the Santa Cruz semi-analytic mock catalog, then apply the method to ~500 arcmin² in GLIMPSE, UNCOVER, CEERS, PRIMER, and JOF. One candidate, GLIMPSE-16043 at z_phot=6.50, passes all criteria; a second, JOF-21739, is tentative. From the photometry they infer strong Hα, a Balmer jump, low gas metallicity, Mstar~1e5 Msun, and derive a Pop III UVLF and SFRD with one detection and several upper limits. The paper explicitly discusses alternative interpretations—extremely metal-poor galaxies, metal-poor AGN, and z~1.5 Paschen-α interlopers—and concludes that spectroscopy is required.

Significance. If confirmed, this would be a landmark result: an ultra-faint, ~1e5 Msun, extremely metal-poor galaxy at z~6.5 and the first observational constraints on the Pop III UV luminosity function. The paper's method is carefully designed and, unusually, ships quantified completeness/contamination tests, forced low-z fits, a comparison to real prism spectra, and an explicit discussion of degenerate solutions. The authors are transparent about the limitations of photometric selection. At present, however, the identification and the UVLF constraints rest on a small number of low-S/N photometric points and on template families that were also used to define the selection, so the strength of the evidence is lower than the abstract's wording suggests. The work is nonetheless a valuable step toward the first stars, and the selection method itself should be reusable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4–2.5, Figure 4] The contamination analysis uses only the SC SAM metal-enriched galaxy catalog, so the claim of 'zero contamination across the entire parameter space' is valid only within that model set. The paper itself identifies two contaminant classes that are not included in SC SAM: metal-poor AGN (§5.2) and rare z≈1.5 Paschen-α emitters (§5.3). Because the UVLF and SFRD results in §4.3–4.4 adopt this fiducial selection function, please state this limitation wherever 'zero contamination' appears, and either quantify contamination for these classes (for example, using the DAWN prism analogs as a prior for Paα emitters) or convert the affected UVLF bins to upper limits.
  2. [§4.2.1, Table 3] The most distinctive feature separating Pop III from other solutions is the F410M deficit (Balmer jump), yet Table 3 gives F410M = 0.71 ± 1.21 nJy, i.e., a non-detection. As a result, the Δχ² values in Table 4, the EW(Hα)=2810±550 Å, and the [Oiii]/Hβ<0.44 limit are all determined by an upper limit and by the assumed Pop III continuum shape, not by a measured Balmer jump. Please show how Δχ² and the derived quantities change if F410M is replaced by a 1σ or 2σ upper limit, and discuss the effect of the adopted 5% flux floor; the current presentation overstates the significance of this key SED feature.
  3. [§4.3, Table 6, Appendix D] Table 6 and Figure 11 include JOF-21739 as a detection at MUV=-17.5, but Appendix D shows that its best low-z Paα solution differs from the Pop III solution by Δχ²=1.2, and the source fails the full color selection. Since the abstract and §4.3 advertise 'first constraints' on the Pop III UVLF, this bin should be presented only as an upper limit or clearly separated as a non-fiducial bin; as written, a source whose nature is nearly degenerate with a low-z interloper contributes to the central scientific claim.
  4. [§4.3, Appendix E] The agreement between GLIMPSE-16043 and simulated UVLFs is described as 'independently reinforcing' the Pop III interpretation, but the comparison is not fully independent: the Visbal et al. model is run with a star-formation efficiency increased from 0.001 to 0.01 to produce ~1e5 Msun clusters matching the candidate, and the Venditti et al. UVLF is computed from Yggdrasil templates with fcov=1, the same template family used to fit GLIMPSE-16043. Please reframe this as a consistency check, and add a sensitivity test showing how the model curves move when efficiency, visibility time, or IMF assumptions are varied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1] The reference list entry in the sentence 'e.g., ?Tornatore et al. 2007' appears to be a broken citation placeholder; please fix the reference formatting throughout the introduction.
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (5)–(6)] Please specify the number of degrees of freedom corresponding to the χ²(PopIII)<10 and χ²(PopIII)<20 thresholds; without the DoF the thresholds are not statistically interpretable.
  3. [§5.3, Figure 14] The comparison with DAWN prism spectra is a strong empirical test, but please report the number of z≈1.5 galaxies whose synthesized F480M excess is comparable to GLIMPSE-16043, rather than only the full z=0–1.7 sample, so that the reader can assess how many Paα analogs were actually tested.
  4. [§4.3] The UVLF calculation adopts an 'average completeness of 75%' for lensing fields, while Figure 4 shows strong variation with redshift and observed magnitude; please justify this average and propagate its uncertainty into the volume-density estimates and upper limits.
  5. [§4.2.4] The [Oiii]/Hβ and Zgas limits assume Hα/Hβ=2.74 with Te=2×10^4 K and ne=10^4 cm^-3; please state how the upper limits shift for a lower electron temperature or a different Case B ratio.
  6. [§4.2.2, Table 5] Table 5 lists Mstar≈10^5 Msun as a single value even though §4.2.2 emphasizes order-of-magnitude model dependence; please quote an explicit range (for example, 0.7–3.3×10^5 Msun) and note the dependence on IMF and tage.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The candidate's 'key Pop III features' largely restate the Yggdrasil-based color cuts used to find it, but independent SED-code comparisons and real low-z spectral checks keep the central claim from being purely circular.

  1. self definitional [§2.1 selection criteria and Fig. 2 caption; Abstract and §4.1]
    "To facilitate the identification of Pop III candidates, we define the red dashed-line regions in the color-color diagrams as selection criteria for Pop III galaxies... In all diagrams, the selection (dashed red line) is guided by the same set of features: the x-axis colors detect weak [O iii] lines and/or the Balmer jump, while the y-axis colors capture the strong H α EW."

    GLIMPSE-16043 is admitted only because its photometry falls inside boxes built from the Yggdrasil Pop III SEDs to isolate exactly the 'key features' later claimed for the source: strong Halpha, a Balmer jump, and the absence of [OIII]. The Abstract's list ('strong Halpha emission ... a Balmer jump ... undetectable metal lines') is therefore a restatement of the selection cuts rather than an independent detection of those features. The loop is real, but it is not the entire argument: the Delta-chi^2 comparisons against flexible metal-enriched templates (BEAGLE, BAGPIPES, Prospector), the z~1.5 Paschen-alpha interloper tests, and the real prism-spectrum archive check provide external anchors, so the Pop III identification is not forced purely by construction.

full rationale

Most of the measurement pipeline is self-contained and non-circular: photometry is independently extracted; completeness is assessed by injecting Yggdrasil models with noise; contamination is estimated from the SC SAM mock catalog and later checked against 2,365 real z=0-1.7 JWST prism spectra shifted to z=1.5. The Delta-chi^2 tests with EAZY, BEAGLE, BAGPIPES, and Prospector give a genuine preference for the Pop III solution over flexible metal-enriched templates, and the JWST spectral archive test is an external falsification attempt. The circularity that exists is in the discovery narrative: the color cuts are literally defined by the features that are later reported as the candidate's 'key Pop III features,' and the derived EW(Halpha), Balmer-jump strength, and [OIII]/Hbeta limit are re-expressions of the same F410M/F444W/F356W/F480M excesses used to select the source, under the Yggdrasil continuum model. This does not by itself force the Pop III interpretation because the alternative-template fits are independent, but it does mean the abstract's feature list is partly a restatement of the selection function. The self-citations to coauthored simulation frameworks such as Visbal et al. (2020) and Venditti et al. are not load-bearing: the observational UVLF point is computed directly from the survey volume and candidate count, and the theory agreement is used only as a plausibility argument rather than as input to the detection.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on many model assumptions: Pop III SED templates, mock contaminant populations, Case B recombination, an assumed ionization parameter, a lens model, and a star-formation efficiency baseline. No new physical entity is introduced; the candidate is an observed photometric object.

free parameters (7)
  • Color-color selection polygon vertices = Eqs. 2-4 and B1-B3
    Hand-drawn around Yggdrasil and BAGPIPES model tracks to separate Pop III from enriched galaxies; directly defines whether a source becomes a candidate.
  • SED selection threshold Cthresh = 9 (with secondary 30)
    Chosen to prioritize low contamination for rare objects; controls completeness/contamination balance and the final candidate count.
  • Ionization parameter log U = >= -1.5
    Assumed to translate the [O III]/Hbeta upper limit into 12+log(O/H) < 6.4; lower log U would relax the metallicity limit.
  • Balmer decrement Halpha/Hbeta = 2.74
    Assumed Case B recombination at 2e4 K and 1e4 cm^-3; converts Halpha excess to Hbeta and sets the [O III]/Hbeta upper limit.
  • Stellar mass normalization = 3.3e5 Msun lens-corrected; 0.7e5 if Pop III.1 IMF
    Fitted scaling of Yggdrasil templates to photometry; mass depends strongly on IMF, age, and nebular conditions.
  • Average completeness for lensing fields = 75%
    Used for UVLF upper-limit completeness correction instead of magnification-dependent completeness.
  • UV-to-SFR conversion kappa_UV = 0.5e-28
    Adopted from Schaerer et al. 2024 for age 2.8 Myr and a moderately top-heavy IMF; converts UVLF to SFRD.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Yggdrasil and Nakajima-Maiolino SEDs faithfully represent Pop III galaxies
    Selection, SED fits, and derived physical properties rely on these templates; if the true Pop III SED differs, candidates and inferred masses/metallicities change.
  • domain assumption SC SAM and BAGPIPES mocks capture the full contaminant population
    Zero contamination rate is relative to these mocks and to real spectroscopically confirmed galaxies; rare unmodeled populations could mimic Pop III colors.
  • domain assumption Case B recombination Halpha/Hbeta = 2.74
    Used in Section 4.2.4 to convert Halpha to Hbeta; deviations change [O III]/Hbeta and metallicity limits.
  • domain assumption Photometric redshift from Pop III templates is correct and the low-z Pa-alpha solution is negligible for GLIMPSE-16043
    Section 5.3 and Appendix D; the tentative JOF candidate shows a near-degenerate z=1.5 solution with Delta chi^2=1.2, while the main candidate rests on Delta chi^2=7.6, not on direct spectroscopy.
  • domain assumption Updated lens model for Abell S1063 is accurate
    Magnification mu=2.9 and all intrinsic luminosities and masses depend on it; the model is cited as in preparation and is not yet public.
  • domain assumption Atomic cooling threshold with fcool=0.01 and eps*=0.1 produces Mstar~1e5 Msun baseline
    Section 2.6 uses this to argue the candidate mass is plausible and to set UVLF expectations.
  • standard math Flat LCDM cosmology with H0=70 km/s/Mpc
    Used for volume and luminosity distance calculations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GLIMPSE: An ultra-faint $\simeq$ 10$^{5}$ $M_{\odot}$ Pop III Galaxy Candidate and First Constraints on the Pop III UV Luminosity Function at $z\simeq6-7$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6VDB4TA

@misc{pith2026250111678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GLIMPSE: An ultra-faint $\simeq$ 10$^5$ $M_\odot$ Pop III Galaxy Candidate and First Constraints on the Pop III UV Luminosity Function at $z\simeq6-7$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6VDB4TA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11678}
}
abstract

Detecting the first generation of stars, Population III (PopIII), has been a long-standing goal in astrophysics, yet they remain elusive even in the JWST era. Here we present a novel NIRCam-based selection method for PopIII galaxies, and carefully validate it through completeness and contamination simulations. We systematically search ~500 arcmin$^{2}$ across JWST legacy fields for PopIII candidates, including GLIMPSE which, assisted by gravitational lensing, has produced JWST's deepest NIRCam imaging thus far. We discover one promising PopIII galaxy candidate (GLIMPSE-16043) at $z=6.50^{+0.03}_{-0.24}$, a moderately lensed galaxy (mu=2.9) with an intrinsic UV magnitude of $M_{UV}$=-15.89. It exhibits key PopIII features: strong H$\alpha$ emission (rest-frame EW $2810\pm550$\AA); a Balmer jump; no dust (UV slope $\beta=-2.34\pm0.36$); and undetectable metal lines (e.g., [OIII]; [OIII]/H$\beta$<0.44) implying a gas-phase metallicity of Zgas/Zsun<0.5%. These properties indicate the presence of a nascent, metal-deficient young stellar population (<5Myr) with a stellar mass of $\simeq10^{5}M_{\odot}$. Intriguingly, this source deviates significantly from the extrapolated UV-metallicity relation derived from recent JWST observations at $z=4-10$, consistent with UV enhancement by a top-heavy PopIII initial mass function or the presence of an extremely metal-poor AGN. We also derive the first observational constraints on the PopIII UV luminosity function at z~6-7. The volume density of GLIMPSE-16043 ($\approx10^{-4}$ cMpc$^{-3}$) is in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions, independently reinforcing its plausibility. This study demonstrates the power of our novel NIRCam method to finally reveal distant galaxies even more pristine than the Milky Way's most metal-poor satellites, thereby promising to bring us closer to the first generation of stars than we have ever been before.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11678 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Key Pop III galaxy features motivating our search strategy illustrated using the GLIMPSE filter-set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NIRCam color-color diagrams for selecting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Completeness (left) and contamination rate (right) of the Pop III selection based on the color [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Completeness and contamination rate for our fiducial Pop III selection combining the color-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A meaningful Pop III search demands the deepest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same NIRcam color-color diagrams as Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Best-fit SED of GLIMPSE-16043 derived with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Best-fit metal-enriched galaxy SEDs gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The point-source morphology of the Pop III candidate is consistent with arising from e.g., ex￾tremely compact star-clusters. NIRCam F150W 1′′×1 ′′ cutout for the observed, PSF, and PSF-subtracted residual image of GLIMPSE-16043. The compactness is consistent with the P…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Constraints on the gas-phase metallicity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pop III UV Luminosity Function (UVLF) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cosmic Pop III star-formation rate density (SFRD) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of GLIMPSE-16043 within the context of early chemical evolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: No low-redshift galaxy in the public JWST spectroscopic archive has colors identical to GLIMPSE￾16043. Our tests show z = 1.5 is the key interloper redshift for contaminants where the Paα line boosts photometry similar to Hα (Section 5.3). Using 2365 galaxies at z = 0…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Same as the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Best-fit SED with seed BH models presented in Inayoshi et al. (2022b) and Nakajima & Maiolino (2022). The red symbols represent the NIRCam and HST photom￾etry of GLIMPSE-16043 in the same manner as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pristine Massive Star Formation Caught at the Break of Cosmic Dawn

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The lensed galaxy AMORE6 at z=5.725 shows H-beta but no [OIII], giving an oxygen abundance upper limit of 0.19% solar, the most metal-poor galaxy known.

  2. Searching for Population III stars with line intensity mapping cross-correlations

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding Pop III stars to the oLIMpus analytical framework shows that only next-generation instruments can detect the H-alpha/HeII cross-correlation and constrain the first stars' IMF.

  3. How Massive Can a Population III Starburst Be? Simulating the First Galaxies with High Lyman-Werner Background

    astro-ph.GA 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Strong Lyman-Werner radiation can delay star formation in 10^8-solar-mass halos, enabling Population III starbursts of up to ~10^6 solar masses before internal metal enrichment ends them.

  4. MINERVA: A NIRCam Medium Band and MIRI Imaging Survey to Unlock the Hidden Gems of the Distant Universe

    astro-ph.GA 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The MINERVA survey will expand JWST medium-band imaging area by about 7 times and is forecast to cut photometric-redshift scatter and outlier fractions by factors of 3.7 and 2.6.

  5. pySTARBURST99: The Next Generation of STARBURST99

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Python rewrite of STARBURST99 with new low-metallicity and very massive star models predicts a 0.3 dex boost in HI ionising flux when the upper mass limit is raised from 120 to 300 solar masses.

  6. In Search of the First Stars: An Ultra-Compact and Very Low Metallicity Lyman-$\alpha$ Emitter Deep Within the Epoch of Reionization

    astro-ph.GA 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A JWST survey finds an ultra-compact, lensed galaxy at z=8.2 with gas metallicity of about 1.4 percent solar, among the lowest known at this epoch.

  7. Magnetic fields limit the mass of Population III stars even before the onset of protostellar radiation feedback

    astro-ph.GA 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Magnetic fields halve the early mass growth of Population III stars, capping the most massive star near 65 solar masses before radiation feedback becomes strong.

  8. GNHeII J1236+6215: A He II $\lambda$1640 emitting and potentially LyC leaking galaxy at $z$ = 2.9803 unveiled through JWST & Keck observations

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A JWST and Keck study reports a metal-poor, compact galaxy at z=2.98 with strong He II 1640 emission, possibly powered by pockets of Population III or very massive stars, and with ISM conditions that favor escaping Ly...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

167 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Vanzella, E., et al

    Adamo, A., Bradley, L. D., Vanzella, E., et al. 2024, Nature, 632, 513 Arrabal Haro, P., Dickinson, M., Finkelstein, S. L., et al. 2023a, Nature, 622, 707 38 Fujimoto & Naidu et al. —. 2023b, ApJL, 951, L22 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2024

  2. [2]

    B., Finkelstein, S

    Bagley, M. B., Finkelstein, S. L., Koekemoer, A. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 946, L12

    2023

  3. [3]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08052

    Barrufet, L., Oesch, P., Marques-Chaves, R., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.08052

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    1996, A&A, 117, 393

    Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&A, 117, 393

    1996

  5. [5]

    E., et al

    Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., Whitaker, K. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.04026

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al

    Bouwens, R. J., Smit, R., Schouws, S., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2106.13719

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al

    Bradley, L. D., Coe, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 13

    2023

  8. [8]

    2022, gbrammer/msaexp: Full working version with 2d drizzling and extraction, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7299501

    Brammer, G. 2022, gbrammer/msaexp: Full working version with 2d drizzling and extraction, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7299501

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7299501 2022

Show all 167 references
  1. [9]

    B., van Dokkum, P

    Brammer, G. B., van Dokkum, P. G., & Coppi, P. 2008, ApJ, 686, 1503

    2008

  2. [10]

    2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

    Bromm, V. 2013, Reports on Progress in Physics, 76, 112901

    2013

  3. [11]

    P., & Loeb, A

    Bromm, V., Kudritzki, R. P., & Loeb, A. 2001, ApJ, 552, 464

    2001

  4. [12]

    2003, Nature, 425, 812

    Bromm, V., & Loeb, A. 2003, Nature, 425, 812

    2003

  5. [13]

    2011, ARA&A, 49, 373

    Bromm, V., & Yoshida, N. 2011, ARA&A, 49, 373

    2011

  6. [14]

    M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al

    Brown, T. M., Tumlinson, J., Geha, M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 796, 91

    2014

  7. [15]

    2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

    2003

  8. [16]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02467

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., & Dav´ e, R. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 4379

    2018

  10. [18]

    C., McLure, R

    Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11413

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18485

    Carniani, S., Hainline, K., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18485

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20533

    Carniani, S., D’Eugenio, F., Ji, X., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20533

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    M., Kartaltepe, J

    Casey, C. M., Kartaltepe, J. S., Drakos, N. E., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2211.07865

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.10238

    Castellano, M., Napolitano, L., Fontana, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.10238

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J., et al

    Chemerynska, I., Atek, H., Furtak, L. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 2615

    2024

  16. [24]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415

    Chevallard, J., & Charlot, S. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1415

    2016

  17. [25]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14900

    Chon, S., & Omukai, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14900

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4175

    Chon, S., Omukai, K., & Schneider, R. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4175

    2021

  19. [27]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10974 Dav´ e, R

    Claeyssens, A., Adamo, A., Messa, M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10974 Dav´ e, R. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 147 de Graaff, A., Setton, D. J., Brammer, G., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.05683

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2025, A&A, 693, A17 D’Eugenio, F., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P

    Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Marques-Chaves, R., Schaerer, D., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, A17 D’Eugenio, F., P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, P. G., Maiolino, R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, arXiv:2308.06317 Di Cesare, C., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4632

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T., Dunlop, J

    Donnan, C. T., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., McLeod, D. J., & Cullen, F. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.03217

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T., McLeod, D

    Donnan, C. T., McLeod, D. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 6011

    2023

  23. [31]

    T., McLure, R

    Donnan, C. T., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 3222

    2024

  24. [32]

    Downes, A. J. B., Peacock, J. A., Savage, A., & Carrie, D. R. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 31

    1986

  25. [33]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    J., Johnson, B

    Eisenstein, D. J., Johnson, B. D., Robertson, B., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.12340

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905

    Whitler, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01905

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P., Whitler, L., et al

    Endsley, R., Stark, D. P., Whitler, L., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2312

    2023

  29. [37]

    A., Katz, N., Weinberg, D

    Fardal, M. A., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., & Dav´ e, R. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 985

    2007

  30. [38]

    J., Korista, K

    Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., Verner, D. A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761

    1998

  31. [39]

    J., Porter, R

    Ferland, G. J., Porter, R. L., van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2013, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 49, 137

    2013

  32. [40]

    J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al

    Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzm´ an, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385

    2017

  33. [41]

    L., Ryan, Russell E., J., Papovich, C., et al

    Finkelstein, S. L., Ryan, Russell E., J., Papovich, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 71

    2015

  34. [42]

    L., Leung, G

    Finkelstein, S. L., Leung, G. C. K., Bagley, M. B., et al. 2024, ApJL, 969, L2

    2024

  35. [43]

    Frebel, A., & Norris, J. E. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 631

    2015

  36. [44]

    L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al

    Frye, B. L., Pascale, M., Pierel, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.07326

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    W., Weisz, D

    Fu, S. W., Weisz, D. R., Starkenburg, E., et al. 2023, ApJ, 958, 167

    2023

  38. [46]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11609

    Fujimoto, S., Wang, B., Weaver, J., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.11609

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543

    Fujimoto, S., Ouchi, M., Kohno, K., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.18543

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J

    Furtak, L. J., Zitrin, A., Weaver, J. R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4568

    2023

  41. [49]

    P., Mather, J

    Gardner, J. P., Mather, J. C., Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 068001

    2023

  42. [50]

    1986, ApJ, 303, 336

    Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336

    1986

  43. [51]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 1071

    Graziani, L., Schneider, R., Ginolfi, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1071

    2020

  44. [52]

    E., Strader, J., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 257

    2020

  45. [53]

    E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A

    Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, 39

    2024

  46. [54]

    Hegde, S., & Furlanetto, S. R. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 428

    2023

  47. [55]

    E., Brammer, G

    Heintz, K. E., Brammer, G. B., Watson, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02211

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M., Rieke, G

    Helton, J. M., Rieke, G. H., Alberts, S., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.18462

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    Hirano, S., Hosokawa, T., Yoshida, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 60

    2014

  50. [58]

    Y.-Y., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Coe, D., et al

    Hsiao, T. Y.-Y., ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Coe, D., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.16200

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Hubble, E. P. 1925, Popular Astronomy, 33, 252

    1925

  52. [60]

    2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, 27

    2020

  53. [61]

    2023, ApJ, 959, 100

    Isobe, Y., Ouchi, M., Tominaga, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 100

    2023

  54. [62]

    I., Thuan, T

    Izotov, Y. I., Thuan, T. X., & Lipovetsky, V. A. 1997, ApJS, 108, 1

    1997

  55. [63]

    L., & Bromm, V

    Jaacks, J., Finkelstein, S. L., & Bromm, V. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2202

    2019

  56. [64]

    2017, ApJ, 848, 85

    Jeon, M., Besla, G., & Bromm, V. 2017, ApJ, 848, 85

    2017

  57. [65]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 1

    Jeon, M., Bromm, V., Besla, G., Yoon, J., & Choi, Y. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 1

    2021

  58. [66]

    H., Bromm, V., & Milosavljevi´ c, M

    Jeon, M., Pawlik, A. H., Bromm, V., & Milosavljevi´ c, M. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3288

    2014

  59. [67]

    D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J

    Johnson, B. D., Leja, J., Conroy, C., & Speagle, J. S. 2021, ApJS, 254, 22

    2021

  60. [68]

    L., Greif, T

    Johnson, J. L., Greif, T. H., & Bromm, V. 2008, MNRAS, 388, 26

    2008

  61. [69]

    2013, Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 809

    Karlsson, T., Bromm, V., & Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2013, Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 809

    2013

  62. [70]

    L., & Bromm, V

    Karlsson, T., Johnson, J. L., & Bromm, V. 2008, ApJ, 679, 6

    2008

  63. [71]

    J., Matthee, J., et al

    Kashino, D., Lilly, S. J., Matthee, J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 66

    2023

  64. [72]

    S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A

    Katz, H., Kimm, T., Ellis, R. S., Devriendt, J., & Slyz, A. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 351

    2023

  65. [73]

    S., & Glover, S

    Klessen, R. S., & Glover, S. C. O. 2023, ARA&A, 61, 65

    2023

  66. [74]

    D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al

    Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJL, 954, L4

    2023

  67. [75]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 142

    Kojima, T., Ouchi, M., Rauch, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 142

    2020

  68. [76]

    I., Greene, J

    Kokorev, V., Caputi, K. I., Greene, J. E., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.09981

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kroupa, P., & Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188

    2002

  70. [78]

    Kulkarni, M., Visbal, E., & Bryan, G. L. 2021, ApJ, 917, 40 Labb´ e, I., Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJL, 777, L19

    2021

  71. [79]

    D., et al

    Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

    1999

  72. [80]

    2020, MNRAS, 497, 2839

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 2839

    2020

  73. [81]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02002

    Liu, B., Sibony, Y., Meynet, G., & Bromm, V. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.02002

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    2024, A&A, 691, A59

    Llerena, M., Amor ´ ın, R., Pentericci, L., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A59

    2024

  75. [83]

    M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al

    Lotz, J. M., Koekemoer, A., Coe, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 97

    2017

  76. [84]

    F., et al

    Lusso, E., Worseck, G., Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4204

    2015

  77. [85]

    2016, A&A, 591, A136

    Lutz, D., Berta, S., Contursi, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A136

    2016

  78. [86]

    Magg, M., Schauer, A. T. P., Klessen, R. S., et al. 2022, ApJ, 929, 119

    2022

  79. [87]

    2010, MNRAS, 407, 1003

    Maio, U., Ciardi, B., Dolag, K., Tornatore, L., & Khochfar, S. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1003

    2010

  80. [88]

    2016, MNRAS, 460, 3733

    Maio, U., Petkova, M., De Lucia, G., & Borgani, S. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3733

    2016

  81. [89]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00953

    Maiolino, R., Uebler, H., Perna, M., et al. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.00953

    arXiv

  83. [91]

    V., de Graaff, A., Franx, M., et al

    Maseda, M. V., de Graaff, A., Franx, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A73

    2024

  84. [92]

    P., Brammer, G., et al

    Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05448

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 2420

    Messa, M., Dessauges-Zavadsky, M., Richard, J., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2420

    2022

  86. [94]

    2024, ApJ, 963, 9 40 Fujimoto & Naidu et al

    Morishita, T., Stiavelli, M., Chary, R.-R., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 9 40 Fujimoto & Naidu et al

    2024

  87. [95]

    J., Inserra, C., Tanaka, M., et al

    Moriya, T. J., Inserra, C., Tanaka, M., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A157

    2022

  88. [96]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08696 Mu˜ noz, J

    Mowla, L., Iyer, K., Asada, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.08696 Mu˜ noz, J. B., Qin, Y., Mesinger, A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 3657

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    P., Oesch, P

    Naidu, R. P., Oesch, P. A., Setton, D. J., et al. 2022a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2208.02794

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Matthee, J., Kramarenko, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.01874

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 5134

    Nakajima, K., & Maiolino, R. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 5134

    2022

  92. [100]

    2023, ApJS, 269, 33

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Isobe, Y., et al. 2023, ApJS, 269, 33

    2023

  93. [101]

    2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.02824

    Nakajima, K., Ouchi, M., Xu, Y., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.02824

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    2023, ApJL, 947, L26

    Nanayakkara, T., Glazebrook, K., Jacobs, C., et al. 2023, ApJL, 947, L26

    2023

  95. [103]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10967

    Napolitano, L., Castellano, M., Pentericci, L., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10967

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413

    Natarajan, P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413

    2021

  97. [105]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 117

    Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ferrara, A., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 117

    2017

  98. [106]

    2023, ApJ, 952, 11

    Nishigaki, M., Ouchi, M., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 952, 11

    2023

  99. [107]

    2010, ApJ, 713, 356

    Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Tominaga, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 713, 356

    2010

  100. [108]

    A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R

    Oesch, P. A., Brammer, G., Naidu, R. P., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 2864

    2023

  101. [109]

    P., & Haiman, Z

    Oh, S. P., & Haiman, Z. 2002, ApJ, 569, 558

    2002

  102. [110]

    B., & Gunn, J

    Oke, J. B., & Gunn, J. E. 1983, ApJ, 266, 713

    1983

  103. [111]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 72

    Ono, Y., Harikane, Y., Ouchi, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 951, 72

    2023

  104. [112]

    Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

    1989

  105. [113]

    1966, Science, 151, 1411

    Page, T. 1966, Science, 151, 1411

    1966

  106. [114]

    Y., Ho, L

    Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2010, AJ, 139, 2097

    2010

  107. [115]

    P., Andersson, E

    Prgomet, M., Rey, M. P., Andersson, E. P., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 2326

    2022

  108. [116]

    H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al

    Price, S. H., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.03920

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Raiter, A., Schaerer, D., & Fosbury, R. A. E. 2010, A&A, 523, A64

    2010

  110. [118]

    A., Topping, M

    Reddy, N. A., Topping, M. W., Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., & Brammer, G. 2023, ApJ, 952, 167

    2023

  111. [119]

    R., Vieira, J

    Rigby, J. R., Vieira, J. D., Phadke, K. A., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.10465

    2023 arXiv

  112. [120]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.07103

    Roberts-Borsani, G., Treu, T., Shapley, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.07103

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    W., Bouwens, R

    Roberts-Borsani, G. W., Bouwens, R. J., Oesch, P. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 143

    2016

  114. [122]

    D., Tacchella, S., et al

    Robertson, B., Johnson, B. D., Tacchella, S., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 31

    2024

  115. [123]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 2188

    Teyssier, R. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2188

    2013

  116. [124]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4380

    Rosdahl, J., & Teyssier, R. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4380

    2015

  117. [125]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  118. [126]

    L., Shapley, A

    Sanders, R. L., Shapley, A. E., Topping, M. W., Reddy, N. A., & Brammer, G. B. 2023, ApJ, 955, 54

    2023

  119. [127]

    2022, ApJ, 935, 174

    Sarmento, R., & Scannapieco, E. 2022, ApJ, 935, 174

    2022

  120. [128]

    2018, ApJ, 854, 75

    Sarmento, R., Scannapieco, E., & Cohen, S. 2018, ApJ, 854, 75

    2018

  121. [129]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 23

    Sarmento, R., Scannapieco, E., & Pan, L. 2017, ApJ, 834, 23

    2017

  122. [130]

    R., Skillman, E

    Savino, A., Weisz, D. R., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 86

    2023

  123. [131]

    2002, A&A, 382, 28 —

    Schaerer, D. 2002, A&A, 382, 28 —. 2003, A&A, 397, 527

    2002

  124. [132]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.12122

    Schaerer, D., Guibert, J., Marques-Chaves, R., & Martins, F. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.12122

    2024 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Schauer, A. T. P., Drory, N., & Bromm, V. 2020, ApJ, 904, 145

    2020

  126. [134]

    2012, MNRAS, 419, 1566

    Schneider, R., Omukai, K., Bianchi, S., & Valiante, R. 2012, MNRAS, 419, 1566

    2012

  127. [135]

    K., & Ferrara, A

    Schneider, R., Omukai, K., Inoue, A. K., & Ferrara, A. 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1437

    2006

  128. [136]

    J., Ormerod, K., et al

    Schouws, S., Bouwens, R. J., Ormerod, K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2409.20549

    2024 arXiv

  129. [137]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139

    Simmonds, C., Tacchella, S., Hainline, K., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6139

    2024

  130. [138]

    Simon, J. D. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 375

    2019

  131. [139]

    Skinner, D., & Wise, J. H. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4386

    2020

  132. [140]

    J., Franx, M., et al

    Smit, R., Bouwens, R. J., Franx, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 122

    2015

  133. [141]

    2015, ApJ, 808, 139

    Sobral, D., Matthee, J., Darvish, B., et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 139

    2015

  134. [142]

    J., Illingworth, G

    Stefanon, M., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 94

    2022

  135. [143]

    A., Weaver, J

    Suess, K. A., Weaver, J. R., Price, S. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.13132

    2024 arXiv

  136. [144]

    P., Chen, Z., et al

    Tang, M., Stark, D. P., Chen, Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.07072

    2023 arXiv

  137. [145]

    2002, A&A, 385, 337

    Teyssier, R. 2002, A&A, 385, 337

    2002

  138. [146]

    2007, MNRAS, 382, 945 An Ultra-faint Pop III Candidate at z = 6.5 Discovered in GLIMPSE 41

    Tornatore, L., Ferrara, A., & Schneider, R. 2007, MNRAS, 382, 945 An Ultra-faint Pop III Candidate at z = 6.5 Discovered in GLIMPSE 41

    2007

  139. [147]

    Trussler, J. A. A., Conselice, C. J., Adams, N. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 5328

    2023

  140. [148]

    2010, Phys

    Tseliakhovich, D., & Hirata, C. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 083520

    2010

  141. [149]

    2006, ApJ, 641, 1

    Tumlinson, J. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1

    2006

  142. [150]

    L., & Shull, J

    Tumlinson, J., Giroux, M. L., & Shull, J. M. 2001, ApJL, 550, L1

    2001

  143. [151]

    Valentino, F., Brammer, G., Gould, K. M. L., et al. 2023, ApJ, 947, 20

    2023

  144. [152]

    2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.14413

    Vanzella, E., Loiacono, F., Bergamini, P., et al. 2023a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.14413

    arXiv

  145. [153]

    2023, MNRAS, 522, 3809

    Venditti, A., Graziani, L., Schneider, R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 3809

    2023

  146. [154]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3030

    Vikaeus, A., Zackrisson, E., Schaerer, D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3030

    2022

  147. [155]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Visbal, E., Bryan, G. L., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ApJ, 897, 95

    2020

  148. [156]

    2010, A&A Rev., 18, 279

    Volonteri, M. 2010, A&A Rev., 18, 279

    2010

  149. [157]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 155

    Trebitsch, M. 2017, ApJ, 849, 155

    2017

  150. [158]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15284

    Vujeva, L., Steinhardt, C., Jespersen, C., & Frye, B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.15284

    2023 arXiv

  151. [159]

    2024, ApJL, 967, L42

    Wang, X., Cheng, C., Ge, J., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L42

    2024

  152. [160]

    R., Cutler, S

    Weaver, J. R., Cutler, S. E., Pan, R., et al. 2024, ApJS, 270, 7

    2024

  153. [161]

    A., Barrufet, L., et al

    Weibel, A., Oesch, P. A., Barrufet, L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 533, 1808

    2024

  154. [162]

    R., Dolphin, A

    Weisz, D. R., Dolphin, A. E., Skillman, E. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, 789, 147

    2014

  155. [163]

    C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M

    Williams, C. C., Tacchella, S., Maseda, M. V., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.09780

    2023 arXiv

  156. [164]

    A., Elbaz, D., et al

    Xiao, M., Oesch, P. A., Elbaz, D., et al. 2024, Nature, 635, 311

    2024

  157. [165]

    L., O’Shea, B

    Xu, H., Norman, M. L., O’Shea, B. W., & Wise, J. H. 2016, ApJ, 823, 140

    2016

  158. [166]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, L51

    Yajima, H., & Khochfar, S. 2017, MNRAS, 467, L51

    2017

  159. [167]

    Yung, L. Y. A., Somerville, R. S., Ferguson, H. C., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 5416

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.